Goodbye IQ tests?

[Niclmaki]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/12/19/intelligence-iq-test-debunked.html

I always wondered how much weight IQ tests carried in terms of "intelligence."

It's a slippery word to define as it is though.

 

[snafupants]

A team from Western University is debunking the concept of general intelligence, saying that there is no single component that can account for how a person performs various mental and cognitive tasks.

Psychometrics tells a different story about g.

The results showed that how people performed at the tests could only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and verbal ability.

Essentially three of four indexes on WAIS, excluding the somewhat discredited processing speed index. Surprise!

They found that each cognitive component related to distinct circuits in the brain, supporting the idea of multiple specialized brain systems, each one with its own capacity.

Completely compatible with Alan Kaufman's and Hans Eysenck's research.

Perhaps these researchers should do some research.

The study also looked at respondents' backgrounds and lifestyle habits and found links between brain function and factors such as age and gender.

Is that supposed to be news?! *Yawn*

"We have shown categorically that you cannot sum up the difference between people in terms of one number, and that is really what is important here," said Owen, adding that further tests still need to be done.

Owen seems rather thick. I haven't seen any novel findings and the conclusions are based on one (methodologically flawed) study.

"Now we need to go forward and work out how we can assess the differences between people, and that will be something for future studies."

Go forward? How about staying abreast of the literature and statistics first?

Am I being too mean?!

 

[BigApplePi]

It's a slippery word to define as it is though.

My def is, "The capacity to do stuff." I.Q. as a number, if we go up and down one scale, is linear. Doing stuff has many variables.

It's like saying, "What's the size of a football." If the narrowest, it's good at fitting thru small spaces; if the longest, you can reach higher when you stand on it.

 

[HDINTP]

Hmm it really depends on what we mean by "intelligence" plus how can somone meassure something that surpasses his understanding? I belive that IQ tests meassure just ability of IQ test taker to take IQ test. One thing that I find stupid is that most of tests have one cocrete answer and I belive that it is big big mistake! Again how do they know that it is one and only possible answer because they created a test? Oh well come on they can't understand what is beyond them...

 

[snafupants]

Hmm it really depends on what we mean by "intelligence" plus how can somone meassure something that surpasses his understanding?

It doesn't surpass the psychological community's understanding.

I belive that IQ tests meassure just ability of IQ test taker to take IQ test.

That's disproven by hundreds of correlational studies.

One thing that I find stupid is that most of tests have one cocrete answer and I belive that it is big big mistake!

You might have a point about convergent and divergent thinking.

Again how do they know that it is one and only possible answer because they created a test?

Standardization and trial and error.

Oh well come on they can't understand what is beyond them...

Be more specific.

 

[HDINTP]

Standardization and trial and error.



Be more specific.

If I develop new way of understanding then how can they meassure it? They can't evaluate something they never had an experience with before can they? You may score something on their standardized test but it can at best meassure very bounded area of "intelligence" in my opinion.

And yes I have problem with standardization and if I prove new solution to be right then even if I were right they will disprove it anyway and maybe in X years they will finally get there and just say: "He was right, He was a genius of his era OMG". Trial and error so will they something they do not know yet consider an error?

 

[snafupants]

If I develop new way of understanding then how can they meassure it? They can't evaluate something they never had an experience with before can they? You may score something on their standardized test but it can at best meassure very bounded area of "intelligence" in my opinion.

OK but there's not any evasion about what's being tested, right?

These tests are beholden to the research outlined in their manuals.

If something proves outmoded, like the emphasis on processing speed in gifted kids, it's disbanded or deemphasized. That's not disingenuous. It's how science works.

And yes I have problem with standardization and if I prove new solution to be right then even if I were right they will disprove it anyway and maybe in X years they will finally get there and just say: "He was right, He was a genius of his era OMG". Trial and error so will they something they do not know yet consider an error?

The trial and error applies to item analysis during standardization.

 

[HDINTP]

OK but there's not any evasion about what's being tested, right?

These tests are beholden to the research outlined in their manuals.

If something proves outmoded, like the emphasis on processing speed in gifted kids, it's disbanded or deemphasized. That's not disingenuous. It's how science works.



The trial and error applies to item analysis during standardization.

Ah, alright you are right so I will correct myself and say that you do not have to score high on standardized tests to be a "genius" you can achieve great things and if I go to extreeme for example score below average on standardized tests. You can understand the world way too much different way etc.?

I just say tool like IQ test is not enough and it measures way too much bounded area of "intelligence" and for me means only that you could understand what they forced you to understand...?

 

[HDINTP]

I would also like to ask you if you personally find IQ tests with one correct answer that is presented to you difficult?

 

[snafupants]

Ah, alright you are right so I will correct myself and say that you do not have to score high on standardized tests to be a "genius" you can achieve great things and if I go to extreeme for example score below average on standardized tests. You can understand the world way too much different way etc.?

Gore Vidal said that Andy Warhol was the only genius he'd ever known with an IQ of 60 points.

I would say, though, that the term "genius" usually connotes some kind of high intellectual aptitude.

I just say tool like IQ test is not enough and it measures way too much bounded area of "intelligence" and for me means only that you could understand what they forced you to understand...?

I understand some people feel that way. It might boil down to an epistemological food fight.

 

[HDINTP]

I understand some people feel that way. It might boil down to an epistemological food fight.

I agree

 

[snafupants]

I would also like to ask you if you personally find IQ tests with one correct answer that is presented to you difficult?

First something broad and then something specific. Ne is associated with increasing options (divergent thinking) and Ni is associated with paring down options (convergent thinking). I can certainly see, though, how convergent tests could detrimentally impact the scores of divergent (Ne?) thinkers.

You see, it depends on the subtest and battery. The Woodcock-Johnson accepts the last answer in the verbal part, so reeling off 84 things isn't going to help if the 84th answer is wrong. The WAIS is slightly different and more rewarding of the scattershot strategy, at least on the verbal ability index.

That was the broad part. The specific part is that I tend to tackle things convergently and via process of elimination. On the WAIS I didn't miss one item. I missed two. Just kitten.

To the extent that I judge others and their intellectual competency, I look at many things aside from test scores. Some people can score in the 1500s/1600 on the SAT but they can't reason on their feet, or think clearly about anything.

People like Ken Jennings, who happens to be Mormon, probably aren't deep philosophers, although they might possess high IQ scores. Their minds are designed for regurgitating facts without any reflection, synthesis, or addition in between.

 

[BigApplePi]

Gore Vidal said that Andy Warhol was the only genius he'd ever known with an IQ of 60 points.

So the I.Q. test is not perfect. It sometimes fails to measure what's it's supposed to measure. What model is perfect? Do you toss out an imperfect model?

Didn't Richard Feynman fall though the cracks also?
"In high school, his IQ was determined to be 125—high, but 'merely respectable'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

[snafupants]

So the I.Q. test is not perfect.

Anyone who claims a perfect test is prevaricating or confused.

It sometimes fails to measure what's it's supposed to measure.

That's true. In classical test theory, it's called error.

It can't be totally eliminated.

What model is perfect?

CHC Theory is pretty good.

Do you toss out an imperfect model?

No, you refine it based on topical research.

Didn't Richard Feynman fall though the cracks also?
"In high school, his IQ was determined to be 125—high, but 'merely respectable'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Yeah, that's probably an accurate assessment.

Today's gifted kids suffer from limited standardizations and ceiling effects.

Tests should be triangulated with other tests, clinical interviews, grades and the like.

 

[crippli]

Gore Vidal said that Andy Warhol was the only genius he'd ever known with an IQ of 60 points.

Good news that!
I presume Gore Vidal didn't know all that many people either?

If there is one, there are more.

 

[snafupants]

Good news that!
I presume Gore Vidal didn't know all that many people either?

If there is one, there are more.

Do you feel you might be a candidate?!

Wasn't Gore Vidal somewhat of an intellectual socialite though?

Ironically, so was Capote...Vidal's literary and forever foe.

Both were intellectuals, writers and queer so I can't understand the animosity.

 

[BigApplePi]

Anyone who claims a perfect test is prevaricating or confused.

We seek a good model and depending on how accurate we want results, accept it or not.

That's true. In classical test theory, it's called error.

I've heard the terms, "reliability" and "validity" but keep mixing up their meanings.

CHC Theory is pretty good.

Interesting. I would also want to include non-I.Q. related abilities under specialized intelligence, such as found in:
1. Idiot savants.
2. Those with photographic or auditory memories.
3. Those who never ever forget a face.
4. Those who never forget events.

Tests should be triangulated with other tests, clinical interviews, grades and the like.

Sure. Depending on motivation.

 

[crippli]

Snafu;
heh..maybe. There is something charming about that label, a stupid genius. I liked it.

I'm not familiar with the work of Vidal and Capote to comment on it.

And I'm not familiar with IQ tests either, other then a few online, that I've just played like any other game. I think here there is something like IQ testing for the army. And some similar tests on young kids, but just to screen for learning disabilities. Otherwise I've never heard it's been used around here. What's used is mainly what education and experience you have, and the interview, your grades are not very important either, perhaps only in very specialized jobs.

It's clear you have studied the subject deeply, like Proxy have studied economy. What will you use the knowledge for? Or is it a hobby/interest with no particular purpose?

 

[Architect]

Without reading the original paper it's difficult to know how good this research is. For example, they decided that video gamers have good short-term memory and reasoning abilities. However, the article didn't say whether they cofounded those variables against age. This is important because younger people generally have better short-term memory and reasoning compared to older, and of course younger folks play video games.

However this collaborates my belief and experiences; I've never taken an IQ test and I don't believe in them. Having spent my life in measurement science I've seen that people make measurements without one, knowing what they're measuring and two, knowing what to do with the results.

 

[snafupants]

I've heard the terms, "reliability" and "validity" but keep mixing up their

@BigApplePi

Basically reliability is the clock moving at the right pace (but always ten minutes fast) and validity is the time being right. The clock could be reliable without being valid - a working clock but totally inaccurate time-wise.

 

[BigApplePi]

@snafu

@BigApplePi

Basically reliability is the clock moving at the right pace (but always ten minutes fast) and validity is the time being right. The clock could be reliable without being valid - a working clock but totally inaccurate time-wise.

Applying that to I.Q. tests, I guess that would mean the test is reliable if it always gives the same I.Q. when you take it, but only valid if it is measuring what you have in mind measuring. If I have that right, its validity is more interesting, but we would nevertheless like it to give consistent results.

 

[Chip201]

Calculations are a fair way to assess the brain! What do you people score on calculationrankings.c? I had 34

 

[snafupants]

@snafu
Applying that to I.Q. tests, I guess that would mean the test is reliable if it always gives the same I.Q. when you take it, but only valid if it is measuring what you have in mind measuring. If I have that right, its validity is more interesting, but we would nevertheless like it to give consistent results.

@BigApplePi

Maybe you should look into the differences between criterion, construct, and content validity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)#Criterion_validity

Also, hopefully the illustration I have affixed will render reliability and validity more lucid.

 

[Clav]

In my experience, I can almost always tell what a person scores on their test within roughly 10 points, to include those rare individuals who score over me, after a single thoughtful conversation.

If it were not generally accurate, people like myself would not be able to essentially determine IQ by simple human interaction with no background information?

 

[snafupants]

In my experience, I can almost always tell what a person scores on their test within roughly 10 points, to include those rare individuals who score over me, after a single thoughtful conversation.

If it were not generally accurate, people like myself would not be able to essentially determine IQ by simple human interaction with no background information?

I agree. Cognitive tests with high g-loadings tend to have high face and ecological validity. It's the qualitative stuff that really brings it all home. What's your IQ brother?

 

[Clav]

Before I get into that point snafupants, I have noticed that people who tend to fall in the 100 range are incapable of accurately assessing others IQ. I am not sure why this is so, and in trying to write why I think it is, I cannot do so with any sort of brevity, so will withhold that line of thought for another post.

I have taken multiple tests, starting if I recall correctly when I was 6, which have ranged from 141 to 157, it has consistently increased with my age, as odd as that is. My suspicion is that subsequent tests after the first have acted as mental training for similar tests in the future. In particular the numerical memorization and abstract three dimensional orientation portions are sections I improve upon each time I take them.

The question then is one of interpretation. Is my IQ increasing, or, is the test then invalid due to previous experience with said test?

My personal view regarding tests after the first is that my score is valid when compared with my previous results, however, when compared to another subject's first test, it is not valid. I would expect that any subsequent testing by a different subject could be directly compared if the preceding test count is the same e.g. my third vs their third test.

Edit: Clarity, spelling.

 

[snafupants]

I have taken multiple tests, starting if I recall correctly when I was 6, which have ranged from 141 to 157, it has consistently increased with my age, as odd as that is.

Perhaps your vocabulary and crystallized intelligence, even relative to your age group, have increased as you've aged?

 

[Clav]

IQ tests:
One of the most important things to remember in my opinion is that your IQ is only one indicator of your ability to learn and gain knowledge. I have met numerous people in the 130 range who are far better students and generally learn more than I do in school and in life.

Motivation is the other primary factor in my opinion. If I don't find something interesting I don't care to learn it in any depth and am completely not motivated. What enrages teachers, peer students, and colleagues at work is that high IQ people do not need to study nearly as much as their counterparts. We tend to appear as lazy and flippant regarding studies, yet when exams come, or a work product must be produced they score similar to prolific studier or are able to create a product in similar time with less research.

 

[snafupants]

IQ tests:
One of the most important things to remember in my opinion is that your IQ is only one indicator of your ability to learn and gain knowledge. I have met numerous people in the 130 range who are far better students and generally learn more than I do in school and in life.

Motivation is the other primary factor in my opinion. If I don't find something interesting I don't care to learn it in any depth and am completely not motivated. What enrages teachers, peer students, and colleagues at work is that high IQ people do not need to study nearly as much as their counterparts. We tend to appear as lazy and flippant regarding studies, yet when exams come, or a work product must be produced they score similar to prolific studier or are able to create a product in similar time with less research.

Canny points. I concur that motivation, and curiosity as a subsidiary, unleashes and fuels intelligence, or at least its expression. Also, school is generally boring, especially for smarties, and so learning is hampered.

 

[Teohrn]

To the extent that I judge others and their intellectual competency, I look at many things aside from test scores. Some people can score in the 1500s/1600 on the SAT but they can't reason on their feet, or think clearly about anything.

People like Ken Jennings, who happens to be Mormon, probably aren't deep philosophers, although they might possess high IQ scores. Their minds are designed for regurgitating facts without any reflection, synthesis, or addition in between.

I'm not familiar with the SAT. Does it not only test knowledge? If I have understood it correctly, you do not need to evaluate anything; the SAT is a test where you succeed if you already know the answer to the question, but fail otherwise. Which is essentially what one one meets throughout the process of education - for the most part. Knowing how to reproduce information but not to use it otherwise epitomizes knowledgeable moron to me. Kim Peek had incredible abilities, yet he couldn't do much with the incredible amounts of knowledge he had. Interestingly, in school, I observed that it were not the idiots who amounted information relevant to school and it were not the intelligent; it were the conscientious mediocrities. I understand it as schooling being directed towards the median: where the stupid are too challenged and therefore fail to provide the expected goods; the mediocre, who are generally also the most conscientious, are at their level and thus draw actual benefit; and the intelligent, who suffer from boredom because there are no significant challenges and therefore often become apathetic towards their education. I think xSTJs very often go into the conscientious mediocre person category; women as well, to a certain extent. These are generalizations, however, and it's possible that my observances are as such because certain types of people tend to stand out more than others.

With that in mind, are people like Ken Jennings necessarily that smart? Sure, they can regurgitate facts, as you say, but if they can't use those facts in some way that yields some sort of product, can they truly be considered intelligent?

Before I get into that point snafupants, I have noticed that people who tend to fall in the 100 range are incapable of accurately assessing others IQ. I am not sure why this is so

The more stupid one is, the more likely is it that one will be overconfident about one's abilities. They will recognize aptitude in those who are the most similar to them, e.g. idiots who think they are geniuses will see geniuses in other idiots. Quite a sad reality, as it negates the possibility of a well-functioning democracy. Basically, most people are mediocre and they vote for mediocre leaders. On the other hand, intelligent people are more likely to rate their own capabilities as being lower than they are. The tendency is for them to believe that they are unique and to erroneously expect that whatever realization and understanding they have is not so either. For better or worse, they are overconfident in the abilities of others. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Canny points. I concur that motivation, and curiosity as a subsidiary, unleashes and fuels intelligence, or at least its expression. Also, school is generally boring, especially for smarties, and so learning is hampered.

A while ago I read an article about a man with an incredibly high IQ (180). The reason he was an interesting person enough to have an article dedicated to him was not simply that his IQ was so high, but that he sold car stereos instead of being a scientist solving the world's biggest problems. To his own admission, he did relatively well in school though it was by no means owing to diligence. In fact, he did not work for it at all as he did relatively well by doing nothing and could not be bothered the drudgery of doing some homework. If he had actually had the motivation, he would have gone very far. The article goes on to elaborate on how IQ does not determine success beyond 120 and above. After that, the motivation and the effort determines success. I guess that while someone with a higher IQ might have an easier time, someone with a lower IQ can make up for it by working harder.

I used to be rather similar in my outlook, I did not have to work for good grades, so I did not. It was to my annoyance that the school system could favor those who simply did as they were expected to do, but weren't especially cerebral, so I did also work against it. My own little rebellion. I have however realized that I cannot rely on intelligence only if I want to achieve something. Therefore, I have motivated myself into actually caring. Moreover, I'm trying to motivate people who were in that same motivation to do the same.

 

[snafupants]

@Teohrn

I'm not familiar with the SAT. Does it not only test knowledge? If I have understood it correctly, you do not need to evaluate anything; the SAT is a test where you succeed if you already know the answer to the question, but fail otherwise.

The pre-recentered SAT has a g-loading (~.8) rivaling most respectable IQ tests.

This finding indicates that the pre-recentered SAT discriminates beyond wonkishness.

Interestingly, in school, I observed that it were not the idiots who amounted information relevant to school and it were not the intelligent; it were the conscientious mediocrities.

And now those conscientious mediocrities (good term) are doubtless teachers themselves.

With that in mind, are people like Ken Jennings necessarily that smart? Sure, they can regurgitate facts, as you say, but if they can't use those facts in some way that yields some sort of product, can they truly be considered intelligent?

They certainly have potential but I wouldn't necessarily call dilettantes like Jennings free thinkers.

After that, the motivation and the effort determines success. I guess that while someone with a higher IQ might have an easier time, someone with a lower IQ can make up for it by working harder.

I define success more subjectively than monetary, occupational or social plaudits.

I have however realized that I cannot rely on intelligence only if I want to achieve something. Therefore, I have motivated myself into actually caring. Moreover, I'm trying to motivate people who were in that same motivation to do the same.

In this context "achieve" and "success" are being falsely portrayed as objective ideas.

These terms may connote similar things to the herd but they lack real value at center.

I think xSTJs very often go into the conscientious mediocre person category; women as well, to a certain extent.

Women are eager to please, like dogs, and usually underwhelming in the intellect department.

 

[Niclmaki]

Women are eager to please, like dogs, and usually underwhelming in the intellect department.

As bad as that may sound, (in my personal experience) it is true. Are intelligent women really that rare? Or do I just have a warped subjective experience?

 

[snafupants]

As bad as that may sound, (in my personal experience) it is true. Are intelligent women really that rare? Or do I just have a warped subjective experience?

@Niclmaki

I know it's true but I'm not about to guest lecture at Scripps or Barnard College and denigrate the inherent demerits of being female. Women at or above four standard deviations on conventionally normed IQ tests are exceedingly rare compared to their male counterparts. Within philosophy and science, very meager quantities of women stand out; even after enfranchisement and women's lib and relative pay equality, women haven't done much with their newfound freedom. I erected a thread about the plebeian intellect of women on this forum. Let me put it this way - I haven't found any woman who could at all keep up with me. If such a creature exists, she eludes my sight and sound. In truth, women are more focused on immediately pressing activities and child rearing, bobbing and giggling and teaching and gesticulating with baby Walter. This is so because women, indeed, are children at heart. Women have always been a leaden component of society - the "fairer" sex should evoke pity, not respect. They are the portrait of incurious yet dutiful mediocrity.

 

[Niclmaki]

Huh, well... this somewhat disappoints me. If I had ever found a girl I was hoping she could keep up / challenge me intellectually. I had an (incorrect) assumption that intellect was equal regardless of gender.

Gonna look for your thread now, since this is a different topic.

 

[SpaceYeti]

My def is, "The capacity to do stuff." I.Q. as a number, if we go up and down one scale, is linear. Doing stuff has many variables.

... That definition seems very poor. I would use the word "Energy" when discussing something which meets the definition you provided. How about we leave the definition of "Intelligence Quotient" to the people who study the brain and intelligence?

 

[snafupants]

Huh, well... this somewhat disappoints me. If I had ever found a girl I was hoping she could keep up / challenge me intellectually. I had an (incorrect) assumption that intellect was equal regardless of gender.

Gonna look for your thread now, since this is a different topic.

The thread proved somewhat jokey/casual but everyone, including the ladies, had their say.

 

[snafupants]

... That definition seems very poor. I would use the word "Energy" when discussing something which meets the definition you provided. How about we leave the definition of "Intelligence Quotient" to the people who study the brain and intelligence?

Intelligence quotient itself is an outmoded misnomer...because things are deviation and not ratio nowadays. Scores are compared against age norms and thrown into the 15 point SD scheme, gaussian curve and all that. I might define g as the ability to understand and manipulate abstraction though. That's pretty close to how Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen define it anyway. Alongside g you are also dealing with intelligence, as construct, and IQ, as a theoretical measurement and approximation of this construct of general intelligence. Whenever you're talking about psychometrics and approximating something abstract, moreover, error comes into play. I like classical test theory for this reason. People really can't argue with IQ along criterion or predictive validity grounds because the factor analytical and correlational numbers disprove the dissenters time and again. The smarter iconoclasts attack IQ along issues of construct, and to a lesser extent content, validity due to construct validity's more moot nature.

 

[Teohrn]

@Teohrn


The pre-recentered SAT has a g-loading (~.8) rivaling most respectable IQ tests.

This finding indicates that the pre-recentered SAT discriminates beyond wonkishness.

I see.

Spoiler

A narcissistic revelation:

I wonder how that is relevant to my case. We had something similar to SAT in my country in the Lower Secondary School. I tested far above the national average on that test. Thus the teachers decided that I should go through an IQ test administered by the school. I got a full score, which for that test, meant that I was on the Mensa entry level. It does make sense though; the more intelligent one is, the more able should one be to absorb and understand information.

And now those conscientious mediocrities (good term) are doubtless teachers themselves.

Unfortunately. Moreover, they never seem to have left the stage they were on as pupils. Their faith in often outdated books never left them. Based on my observations, the higher in the education system one goes, the more likely the teachers are going to be able to think critically, use their information and answer questions properly. Challenging questions were considered snide at one point.

They certainly have potential but I wouldn't necessarily call dilettantes like Jennings free thinkers.

Acceded.

I define success more subjectively than monetary, occupational or social plaudits.

So do I, to certain extent, but I'm interested in "objective" success as well. Or it may perhaps be that my definition of success just happens to coincide with said plaudits. In any case, my definition of accomplishment is subjectively based. That, of course, does not necessarily connote that I deviate, just that it's my own.

In this context "achieve" and "success" are being falsely portrayed as objective ideas.

They're subjective ideas, but that's not the point. Let's say I have a goal, it doesn't need to be specific. In that case, I would obviously have to reach for it. If the goal is to become the richest man on Earth, then one has to do something about it.

These terms may connote similar things to the herd but they lack real value at center.

They're subjective, which I don't deny but wholly agree with.

Women are eager to please, like dogs, and usually underwhelming in the intellect department.

A very politically incorrect statement yet probably true as well. I have noticed that the more intelligent women I know tend to be less eager to please others and more eager to please themselves.

 

[BigApplePi]

Intelligence def?

@SpaceYeti, note snafu, HDINTP, Clav

My def is, "The capacity to do stuff."

... That definition seems very poor. I would use the word "Energy" when discussing something which meets the definition you provided. How about we leave the definition of "Intelligence Quotient" to the people who study the brain and intelligence?

"Energy to do stuff"? If that's what you meant, sounds good. I was thinking intelligence in general and that's the top of the top-down definition. That top-down can be expanded to three dimensions.

Doing stuff refers to breadth, depth and speed. Energy = ability to do work in physics. Even that is divided into two categories: static and moving. Work = force times distance in physics.

So I'd say intelligence has those three dimensions: breadth, depth and speed. Too broad and nothing is accomplished. Too narrow and one easily collapses. Too slow and nothing is accomplished either.

Breadth: think, "Jack of all trades, master of none."
Depth: think idiot savant or genious unable to get out of isolation.
Speed: think getting there before competition arrives.

A further breakdown (arbitrary) could be by sex. We see how males can be very unintelligent in some areas women excel in and vice versa.